People v. Haggin

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1881 No. No. 7,072Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a reclamation district is the real party in interest in an action to collect delinquent assessments and must sue in its own name rather than in the name of the people. Because the plaintiff lacked the right to recover, the demurrer was properly sustained.

Issues

Whether a reclamation district must sue in its own name to collect delinquent assessments.
Whether the complaint failed to state a cause of action by naming the people as plaintiff instead of the reclamation district.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In our opinion, it is manifestly the reclamation district. The money, when collected by suit or paid by the persons assessed, is to go to the credit of the district, and to be paid out for the reclamation of the district.”

“We are of opinion that the corporation—the reclamation district—was the real party in interest within the rulings of the cases above cited, and that the action should have been brought in the name of the district.”

Synopsis

Swamp Land District—Publication—Assessment.—A complaint in an action to recover an assessment upon a swamp land district stated that the petition for the formation of the district was published for four weeks ending with February 25th, and that on the 2nd df May thereafter, at the next meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the board made an order approving the petition, which order was signed by the President and attested by the clerk. Held, that the complaint was insufficient in not showing that the publication was made for four weeks next preceding the hearing, and in not showing that the board noted its approval on the petition.

Id.—Assessment—Party in Interest—Plaintiff.—Such action should be brought in the name of the swamp land district.

Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Demurrer.—The objection that such action is brought in the name of the people can be raised upon a demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that it does not state a cause of action.

Thornton, J.: This action was brought to enforce the lien of an assessment upon certain lands alleged to have been made for their reclamation. The complaint was demurred to upon the ground, among others, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The Court below sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff declining to amend, judgment was rendered for defendants. From this judgment plaintiff appealed.

On the argument it was contended that the complaint was defective in its averments as to the publication of the petition presented to the Board of Supervisors of Kern County, for the formation of a reclamation district, and as to the approval of the petition by the board just referred to. The averments referred to are as follows:

[584]“ That thereafter the said petition was published once a week for a period of more than four (4) weeks preceding the hearing hereinafter mentioned, viz., for a period beginning with the twenty-second (22nd) day of December, A. D. 1870, and ending on the twenty-fifth (25th) day of February, A. D. 1871, in the Havilah ‘Weekly Courier,’ a newspaper published once a week at Havilah, in the said county of Kern; that at the time said publication was going on, there was no newspaper in said Kern County which was published oftener than once a week; that immediately after said publication was completed as aforesaid, to wit, on the twenty-eighth (28th) day of February, a. d. 1871, the said petition was presented to the said Board of Supervisors, that is to say, was filed in their office and with the clerk of said board; and an affidavit of publication thereof, in the usual form, made by the publisher of the said newspaper, and showing that the said petition had been published in the manner hereinbefore set forth, was filed in the office of the said board, with the said petition and at the same time. That the said board was not in session at that time, and was not in session after that time until the month of May following.

“ That at the next term of said board held after the publication of the petition was completed as aforesaid, and after the said petition and affidavit had been presented and filed as aforesaid, to wit, on the 2nd day of May, 1871, the said petition so presented and on file came up for a hearing before the said board, at a regular meeting thereof, and the said board then and there heard the same, and upon hearing and consideration thereof found the statement set forth in said petition to be correct and true, and that no land was improperly included in or excepted from said district; and that said board then and there made an order approving the said petition, which order was signed by the president of the said board and attested by the clerk thereof.

People v. Haggin

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief